"Separation of Church and State..."

[Garb]

What you described with your wife is not faith. It is theory. Your hypothesis is - My wife is cheating on me. (I am avoiding a negative hypothesis here, but for this example I could let it rephrase). You conduct research via observation. I don't smell any male cologne, there aren't any rubbers in the trash, she isn't sneaking out, etc... Conclusion: hypothesis rejected. Repeatable and falsifiable.

Both faith and observation have no bearing on what objective truth is, which in this case, is that water molecules are made up of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom.

Is this some type of Eastern religion, Depak Chopra position? You lost me. Are you telling me that this apple that I hold in my hand is just my opinion on the position that an apple is in my hand?

What I'm saying is faith can be present without observation, but it can't be present in conflict with that observation without being ignorance. As for my comment about objective truth, I'm saying that your opinion on the apple in your hand doesn't matter. If there is an apple in your hand, but you and everyone around you observes that there is not an apple in your hand, then you still have one in your hand. In other words, just because scientists don't observe God doesn't mean he isn't there. It only means their observations haven't revealed him. Assuming that God can operate outside the laws of science, they most likely never will observe him either, at least not in this life.

 

[dross]

In order to prove the Earth was created by a Supreme Being, you must first prove the existence of a Supreme Being.

If you can't do that, the whole thing falls apart.

Weaknesses in another theory are not proof of anything. Even if you completely disprove evolution, you still have zero evidence in support of creation.

 

[LEaSH]

Yeah but...

...Glock 17.

 

[rambone]

IBTL

 

[Hookeye]

Proven existence = no faith.

BTW, I don't care for the Creation VS Evolution argument, as I like to mix them together

 

[Bummer]

The funniest part is that you don't realize that some people who have an opposing view to you have studied upper level science in college. We just do not believe into what we are preached. Just because you believe (faith) it is does not mean it is.

The funniest part of this is that a bunch of people who slept through Science class woke up with an opinion about the curriculum.

By the way, Global Warming is part of sciences too. Just because we do not believe in what "science" tells us does not mean that we have religious objections. We just do not believe (faith) in questionable science.

Global Warming is politics. Climate Change is science. The fact that you mention faith at all clearly indicates that yours is a religious argument.

Where the schools are concerned, while they necessarily will be a product of the prevailing culture, there is no need for unproven junk science to be taught simply because it opposes religion. We have been sold a false premise in that if the state cannot sponsor religion it necessarily must seek to discredit it, the sheer indefensibly of Darwinism (which seems to have become a religion itself) and Global Warming (again, either a religion or a part of the atheistic pantheon of religion). I support the teaching of both of these in public schools as soon as they are definitively proven, which will be never.

Junk science? Intelligent Design and Creationism aren't even science, though they may well be junk. Nobody can really say since they both rely upon magic.

There's no such thing as Darwinism. That's a word cooked up by superstitious people to discredit something they don't even understand.

The Theory of Evolution has been tested for over 150 years. So far it stands, though it has been refined. Think you can disprove it? Hop to it. The guy who does so will win the Nobel Prize and collect a million dollar check.

As for the perennial misquote of Jefferson, his famous words were directed to pastors assuring them that they need not fear the government invading the management of their churches. Nothing more and nothing less. ...

Untrue. The Danbury Baptist church contacted Jefferson concerned that there might be a state religion, quite certain it would not be them. Jefferson let them know that there was nothing to be concerned about, since there would be no state religion.

The Separation of Church and State is real, goes both ways, and is obviously necessary.

 

[wagyu52]

In order to prove the Earth was created by a Supreme Being, you must first prove the existence of a Supreme Being.

If you can't do that, the whole thing falls apart.

Weaknesses in another theory are not proof of anything. Even if you completely disprove evolution, you still have zero evidence in support of creation.

The Bible states clearly that God is eternal, infinite and that God exists separate and outside his creation. The Bible also states that God's creation is finite. Science has proven that the universe and everything in it is finite, science has yet to prove or disprove anything outside of our finite universe.

 

[thebishopp]

The Bible states clearly that God is eternal, infinite and that God exists separate and outside his creation. The Bible also states that God's creation is finite. Science has proven that the universe and everything in it is finite, science has yet to prove or disprove anything outside of our finite universe.

Ok, so let me see if I understand this. Because "science" (at the level we currently have) can neither prove or disprove the existence of "god" then that means "god exists"?

 

[Garb]

Ok, so let me see if I understand this. Because "science" (at the level we currently have) can neither prove or disprove the existence of "god" then that means "god exists"?

No. It means that scientists should be making room for the possibility, which most do not. Scientists often like to try to find truth only through science. I guess that's alright, considering it's their job, but they fail to take into account anything that can't be seen, heard, touched, smelled or tasted BY THEM. Those last two words are important, because they don't take into account that there is a very good possibility that dimensions exist that they aren't aware of. In fact, many people claim to have seen supernatural/paranormal events taken place, but scientists who openly claim to subscribe to the idea that these events are not figments of the imagination are thought of as crackpots who know nothing of science. Is science the study of what we can perceive with our five senses, or is it a quest to find objective truth?

 

[lucky4034]

While I agree it is freedom OF religion not freedom FROM religion...

If by the "church" you mean "christianity":

Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814


Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Thomas Cooper, 1814

You can quote Jefferson if you want... that doesn't mean he's right. A simple look at "marriage" is a clear example of something created by religion and governed by state.

Want to partake in "Holy Matrimony?" ....

... go apply for a Marriage license...

Things don't workout?.... go apply for a divorce.​

From a "non-believers" standpoint... the way Marriage is run in this country seems to be the biggest crock of **** I've ever heard of. Its no wonder it is failing miserably.

 

[lucky4034]

No. It means that scientists should be making room for the possibility, which most do not. Scientists often like to try to find truth only through science. I guess that's alright, considering it's their job, but they fail to take into account anything that can't be seen, heard, touched, smelled or tasted BY THEM. Those last two words are important, because they don't take into account that there is a very good possibility that dimensions exist that they aren't aware of. In fact, many people claim to have seen supernatural/paranormal events taken place, but scientists who openly claim to subscribe to the idea that these events are not figments of the imagination are thought of as crackpots who know nothing of science. Is science the study of what we can perceive with our five senses, or is it a quest to find objective truth?

Why should scientists make room for anything? The same way no one requires a Christian to make room for the possibility that he spent his whole life having "faith" in something he can't prove and has very little evidence of.

If a scientist doesn't believe in God... at least he has some proven information that seems to be contradictory to certain religious beliefs to base his "decision" on.

On the other hand, religion... Christianity especially is completely "faith" driven. And that is ok.... There is nothing wrong with believing God exists. In this country you are free to believe what you want.

As a "non" believer I will not be going around trying to convince others that their God doesn't exist and while it might be fun to have that discussion it isn't usually something I see "non" believers passionate about doing. As far as I'm concerned as of now... there is no way to PROVE that God (of any kind) doesn't exist... as is there no way to prove that he does.

What I find ironic however is the number of believers who try to convince others that God DOES exist. Obviously not all believers... but there are many who feel compelled to try to convince others which in my mind seems to go against everything Christianity is built upon. Trying to PROVE that God exists removes the whole idea of "having faith".

Not only does it seem like a waste of time for Christians to try and PROVE that God exists, it goes against the whole principal of their religion.

What happens if some Christian actually does PROVE that God exists? What then? If someone can PROVE that God exists, it removes the whole aspect of faith... so then does Christianity no longer exist?

From my understanding, as a Christian your only purpose in life is to be a vessel for religion. You are supposed to be available to share the gospel should someone want information about it, not be an investigator trying sort clues and try to prove to others that you aren't wasting your life believing in something that doesn't exist.

 

[Pocketman]

Many of the pro-creation posts in this thread are examples of why we keep religion out of our schools.

"Creator" - a term used by the founders, but intentionally never defined in any official document. So, for the sake of argument, who then gets to define creation? There's a teacher I know from my church, who has a different view of creation than I do. Thankfully, it's not her job to teach creationism to my children. Do we even want to consider throwing reincarnation into the discussion?

Although evidence can be presented to support creation and intelligent design, our religious beliefs are based upon faith. If Gods wanted us to have all the answers concerning creation and/or evolution, He would not have destroyed the unicorns during the Flood.

 

[jgreiner]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

They should have spelled out the EXECUTIVE branch as well, because Obama has chosen to ignore that Amendment......with his forcing the Catholic Church to go against it's doctrine.

 

[RockofStrength]

Many of the pro-creation posts in this thread are examples of why we keep religion out of our schools.

I thought religion was removed from schools because religion is (commonly) a family or small group oriented affair and thus interferes with the overall goal of separating children from strong familial attachments so that the government can step in and fulfill that role.

It was either that or co-opting religion INTO the government, but that tends to have problems on a globalist's agenda because then you create factionalism on religious grounds between nations.

 

[thebishopp]

You can quote Jefferson if you want... that doesn't mean he's right. A simple look at "marriage" is a clear example of something created by religion and governed by state.

Want to partake in "Holy Matrimony?" ....

... go apply for a Marriage license...

Things don't workout?.... go apply for a divorce.​

From a "non-believers" standpoint... the way Marriage is run in this country seems to be the biggest crock of **** I've ever heard of. Its no wonder it is failing miserably.

While it doesn't mean he is "right", it does mean that several of the founders (Madison has also made comments to this end) had the intention of keeping religion from the the basis for the laws of this nation.

If their intent was to keep laws from being based on religion then to say that this country was founded upon "christian religion".

As I have pointed out many statements by the primary authors of our founding documents say this very thing citing their fear of what happens when religion becomes intertwined with government.

 

[thebishopp]

As for the perennial misquote of Jefferson, his famous words were directed to pastors assuring them that they need not fear the government invading the management of their churches. Nothing more and nothing less. The Supreme Court twisting of this stands in evidence of the danger of leftists and also of one person holding sway too long, as demonstrated by Franklin Roosevelt disregarding the tradition that stood since Washington that a president should serve at most two terms. Among other problems is that more than that allows an unacceptable level of packing the courts.

While this particular letter was addressed to the pastors of that particular church the fact remains is that Jefferson made quite a few other statements regarding the matter. His opinion never changed and he was pretty vocal about it.

 

[thebishopp]

No. It means that scientists should be making room for the possibility, which most do not. Scientists often like to try to find truth only through science. I guess that's alright, considering it's their job, but they fail to take into account anything that can't be seen, heard, touched, smelled or tasted BY THEM. Those last two words are important, because they don't take into account that there is a very good possibility that dimensions exist that they aren't aware of. In fact, many people claim to have seen supernatural/paranormal events taken place, but scientists who openly claim to subscribe to the idea that these events are not figments of the imagination are thought of as crackpots who know nothing of science. Is science the study of what we can perceive with our five senses, or is it a quest to find objective truth?

Ok I have to say I do agree with this.

 

[CountryBoy1981]

While this particular letter was addressed to the pastors of that particular church the fact remains is that Jefferson made quite a few other statements regarding the matter. His opinion never changed and he was pretty vocal about it.

He did make numerous other statements. One example was how great it was that the churches were using the government buildings to hold their services. To say Jefferson's opinion never changed is nonsensical. Jefferson was the most erratic of our founding fathers; one day he would say one thing and then three weeks later he would say the exact opposite was true.

 

[thebishopp]

He did make numerous other statements. One example was how great it was that the churches were using the government buildings to hold their services. To say Jefferson's opinion never changed is nonsensical. Jefferson was the most erratic of our founding fathers; one day he would say one thing and then three weeks later he would say the exact opposite was true.

Use of government buildings by any religion was supported not use by just those the government approved of. His point was that the government could not say which religion could use a government/public building but that all had equal right to do so.

That is not a departure from his statements about government sanctioned religion nor is it "erratic". If you could please point out where he said one thing and then three weeks later said something totally contradictory I would appreciate it.

Let me be clear. Jefferson did not oppose "religion" per say, just "religion" that was integrated into the government (government sanctioned/supported/etc.). In fact he encouraged religious studies of all denominations/sects at the University of Virginia and expected the students to participate in the various denominational schools/classes. Of course this is to be expected as Jefferson seemed to believe that knowledge was very important and that ignorance in any form was undesirable.

 

[thebishopp]

"Creator" - a term used by the founders, but intentionally never defined in any official document.

I am glad that someone pointed this out. A little detail that seems to be oft missed when talking about what our founders religious views were. Based on many of their statements they were obviously people who believed in some form of "creator" but many were vague on naming that "entity" specifically.

In fact an attempt to insert the term "jesus christ" into the Preamble of the Virginia Constitution was made and failed:

"The bill for establishing religious freedom... I had drawn in all the latitude of reason and right. It still met with opposition; but with some mutilations in the preamble, it was finally passed; and a singular proposition proved that it's protection of opinion was meant to be universal. Where the preamble declares that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed, by inserting the word 'Jesus Christ,' so that it should read 'a departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion.' The insertion was rejected by a great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mahometan, the Hindoo, and infidel of every denomination."

- Jefferson


An interesting factoid on the subject... Jefferson's original draft of the Declaration of Independence had this phrase instead of the one that it was changed to before it's submission to congress: We hold these truths to be sacred and undeniable, that all men are created equal and independent; that from that equal creation they derive in rights inherent and unalienables, among which are the preservation of life, and liberty and the pursuit of happiness.